Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Promote a Healthful Diet and Physical Activity
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is inviting public comment on its draft recommendation statement on behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthful diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults. This draft recommendation is an update of the USPSTF 2002 recommendation on behavioral counseling in primary care to promote physical activity and a partial update of its 2003 recommendation on behavioral counseling in primary care to promote a healthy diet.( the part of the recommendation that dealt with counseling patients at risk of cardiovascular disease was not updated at this time. )
To provide comments, please go to http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/tfcomment.htm. The opportunity to comment on this draft recommendations statement is available until March 22, 2011.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is working to make its recommendations clearer and more useful. This is part of its ongoing effort to keep its work and methods clear to the public it serves. The USPSTF is a national, independent panel of medical experts that makes recommendations, based on scientific evidence, to primary care doctors and other health care providers about which clinical preventive services they should offer their patients.
Showing posts with label USPSTF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USPSTF. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Correction: Mammogram Recommendations
Correction: On November 17 post on mammogram recommendations contained a misstatement. Based on the studies available in 2002, the USPSTF DID recommend in women age 40-49 receive annual mammograms. Since the verification hotlink was not included in the post, the only reasonable explanation for this error was that I had mistakenly viewed the previous recommendations (also found in the 2nd Print Edition of the US Guides) of the Task Force, which agreed with the present recommendations - my apologies. We will make certain the hotlinks are included in future posts. As of November 22, these post have been peer-reviewed by the AOCOPM publications committee, which will hopefully catch any errors prior to posting.
Some medical commentators, such as Bernadine Healy MD, have said that the Task Force is always flip-flopping on their recommendations. However, the Task Force is really looking at the whole body of scientific evidence available to us at a given point in time. Naturally, over time as evidence accumulates and studies are repeated, theories are either verified or disproven. This is why the standard of care for any disease typically does not change with one study. How many health recommendations have changed over the years – such as to use margarine rather than butter, would anyone still make that recommendation today? How is public health any different from any other area of medicine practice?
This mammogram discussion also brings to light the conflicting recommendations as to what constitutes the standard of care in medicine today. The issue is that there are different standards for the same disease across specialties and across the first world. Ironically, the USPSTF is recognized as “the standard” worldwide for making prevention guidelines because of the extensive review of medical research that goes into the process to determine public health guidelines for the general population. The American Cancer Society and other groups are looking at the sub-segment of the population diagnosed with cancer, not the proportion of those people relative to the entire population. Interestingly, no one has mentioned that these groups may have their own political, legal or monetary concerns.
From a public health perspective, if it costs more to screen people to find one case of disease than it does to treat one case of disease (at the average stage it would be found), there is no point in screening. It costs more than it’s worth. [Obviously the individual who may have cancer doesn’t feel that way. But from a societal standpoint, where money is not an unlimited commodity, we must seek the biggest bang for our healthcare buck.] In this case, a better screening test that does not yield a cumulative 43% false-positive rate by the ninth mammogram or a cheaper one to make it worthwhile for this age group.
Some medical commentators, such as Bernadine Healy MD, have said that the Task Force is always flip-flopping on their recommendations. However, the Task Force is really looking at the whole body of scientific evidence available to us at a given point in time. Naturally, over time as evidence accumulates and studies are repeated, theories are either verified or disproven. This is why the standard of care for any disease typically does not change with one study. How many health recommendations have changed over the years – such as to use margarine rather than butter, would anyone still make that recommendation today? How is public health any different from any other area of medicine practice?
This mammogram discussion also brings to light the conflicting recommendations as to what constitutes the standard of care in medicine today. The issue is that there are different standards for the same disease across specialties and across the first world. Ironically, the USPSTF is recognized as “the standard” worldwide for making prevention guidelines because of the extensive review of medical research that goes into the process to determine public health guidelines for the general population. The American Cancer Society and other groups are looking at the sub-segment of the population diagnosed with cancer, not the proportion of those people relative to the entire population. Interestingly, no one has mentioned that these groups may have their own political, legal or monetary concerns.
From a public health perspective, if it costs more to screen people to find one case of disease than it does to treat one case of disease (at the average stage it would be found), there is no point in screening. It costs more than it’s worth. [Obviously the individual who may have cancer doesn’t feel that way. But from a societal standpoint, where money is not an unlimited commodity, we must seek the biggest bang for our healthcare buck.] In this case, a better screening test that does not yield a cumulative 43% false-positive rate by the ninth mammogram or a cheaper one to make it worthwhile for this age group.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Who is the US Preventive Services Task Force?
The past 24 hours I have heard at least a dozen media pundits commenting on when breast cancer screening should or shouldn’t be done. Apparently most seem to think that disease and specialty societies trump the US PSTF. They have bashed “government bureaucrats” who are apparently trying “to deny women care.”
Let’s understand the nature of this Task Force – It is lead by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). All members reviewing breast cancer screeening, save the two PhD nurses, are physician experts, from various specialty colleges, academia and public health service; the majority also have public health degrees in addition. “Federal partners include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Defense (DOD), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Primary care partners include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Physician Assistants, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American College of Preventive Medicine, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, and the Pan American Health Organization.” [1]
“The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services. [Here are the methods.] The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care. Recommendations issued by the USPSTF are intended for use in the primary care setting… to present health care providers with…the evidence behind each recommendation, allowing clinicians to make informed decisions about implementation.” [2]
No other organization goes through such a rigorous examination of the evidence for clinical recommendations for the asymptomatic general population. These recommendations are obviously different than for a patient who is symptomatic, has a family history or would otherwise be considered high risk. It is also important to understand and weigh the capabilities, limitations, benefits and potential harms of a given screening test. The distinction not being made by the press is the difference between population medicine versus care of the individual patient.
Let’s understand the nature of this Task Force – It is lead by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). All members reviewing breast cancer screeening, save the two PhD nurses, are physician experts, from various specialty colleges, academia and public health service; the majority also have public health degrees in addition. “Federal partners include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Defense (DOD), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Primary care partners include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Physician Assistants, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American College of Preventive Medicine, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, and the Pan American Health Organization.” [1]
“The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services. [Here are the methods.] The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care. Recommendations issued by the USPSTF are intended for use in the primary care setting… to present health care providers with…the evidence behind each recommendation, allowing clinicians to make informed decisions about implementation.” [2]
No other organization goes through such a rigorous examination of the evidence for clinical recommendations for the asymptomatic general population. These recommendations are obviously different than for a patient who is symptomatic, has a family history or would otherwise be considered high risk. It is also important to understand and weigh the capabilities, limitations, benefits and potential harms of a given screening test. The distinction not being made by the press is the difference between population medicine versus care of the individual patient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
